The apex court says under Sections 32 and 32A of the amended NAB law, the Supreme Court is not empowered to hear main appeals or bail petitions in NAB cases.
ISLAMABAD: (UrduPoint / Pakistan Point News-July 24th, 2026) The Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to hear appeals and bail applications in cases filed under the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) law, declaring that such matters fall within the authority of the Federal Constitutional Court.
In its detailed judgment, the apex court stated that under Sections 32 and 32A of the amended NAB law, the Supreme Court is not empowered to hear main appeals or bail petitions in NAB cases. It held that all such matters will now be decided by the Federal Constitutional Court.
The ruling means that the PTI founder’s bail petition, which had earlier been filed before the Supreme Court after challenging a High Court decision, will now be heard by the Federal Constitutional Court. The Supreme Court registrar had previously returned the petition after raising objections.
The judgment further clarified that, under Articles 175A and 175F of the Constitution, all pending NAB appeals and bail matters are to be treated as transferred to the Federal Constitutional Court.
The issue of jurisdiction arose during proceedings in a pending NAB case before the Supreme Court.
Amendments to the NAB law, introduced on March 5, 2026, assigned the authority to hear NAB appeals to the Federal Constitutional Court through the insertion of Section 32A.
A SC three-member bench headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, with Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan as members, heard the case.
During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel, Ibad ur Rehman Lodhi, argued that the Supreme Court should retain jurisdiction over the bail matter, citing a March 18, 2026, order in which the apex court had granted bail in a NAB case after the legislative amendments.
Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan contended that NAB appeals and bail applications should exclusively be heard by the Federal Constitutional Court, arguing that different aspects of the same case could not be simultaneously heard by two separate courts. NAB’s counsel also supported the federal government’s stance.
The SC three-member bench had reserved its verdict on July 16 before issuing the ruling.
